Zaraithe:Greene with zero comments. This article must include instructions on resurrecting Rand herself so she can lead a crusade against the Library hordes and usher in one thousand years of paradise.

Zaraithe:Greene with zero comments. This article must include instructions on resurrecting Rand herself so she can lead a crusade against the Library hordes and usher in one thousand years of paradise.

The confluence of religion, government, and the military industrial complex are the real problem.

Focusing on a miniscule % of a % is just mindless internet dickwaving.

Meaning what exactly? It seems obvious to me, that whoever has buckets of money will corrupt the democratic process. 1% is a goofy kind of shorthand when it's really more like the 0.1% that have inordinate amounts of power and influence.

The confluence of religion, government, and the military industrial complex are the real problem.

Focusing on a miniscule % of a % is just mindless internet dickwaving.

Meaning what exactly? It seems obvious to me, that whoever has buckets of money will corrupt the democratic process. 1% is a goofy kind of shorthand when it's really more like the 0.1% that have inordinate amounts of power and influence.

Yes, indeed.

FTA: We are here today because of the influence of Wall Street when it comes to economic policy; the destruction of labor; the serf-level minimum wage; and the deregulation, monopolization and privatization of industries. Libertarianism will not only push us deeper into becoming a winner-takes-all society, it will help religious organizations fill the vacuum created by the destruction of government.

but most of the world's leading economists denounce it as a folly that would exacerbate the central economic challenges we face today-most significantly, wealth disparity.

See, personally, I think the most significant economic challenge we face today is making sure people have food, shelter, health care and clothing. Wealth disparity, in and of itself, never bothered me that much. Having some people get filthy rich while others can't eat? Yes, that's a problem, but it's not quite the same thing as denouncing disparity per se.

The confluence of religion, government, and the military industrial complex are the real problem.

Focusing on a miniscule % of a % is just mindless internet dickwaving.

Meaning what exactly? It seems obvious to me, that whoever has buckets of money will corrupt the democratic process. 1% is a goofy kind of shorthand when it's really more like the 0.1% that have inordinate amounts of power and influence.

That .1% has massive influence.

The miniscule % of a % that are atheist libertarians have no power, unless the Kochs are secret atheists, which I doubt, but it is possible.

Now I'll happily point and laugh at the kind of person who got this author's panties in a bunch. I kinda see them as just ideologues who take the labels that describe them a little too seriously, treating 'atheist' or 'libertarian' (or any other label for that matter) as something to *be*, not just 'what they sound like'.

But -- in the grand scheme of things, how important and influential are those two, anyway? One's a fat bellowing C-list entertainer, and the other's "yeah, I think I heard that guy's name, once" at best. And maybe I haven't been paying close attention but I'm having trouble thinking of more names to add to the list of libertarian atheist opinion leaders.

The confluence of religion, government, and the military industrial complex are the real problem.

Focusing on a miniscule % of a % is just mindless internet dickwaving.

Meaning what exactly? It seems obvious to me, that whoever has buckets of money will corrupt the democratic process. 1% is a goofy kind of shorthand when it's really more like the 0.1% that have inordinate amounts of power and influence.

That .1% has massive influence.

The miniscule % of a % that are atheist libertarians have no power, unless the Kochs are secret atheists, which I doubt, but it is possible.

Oh, no, the super-rich are disproportionately atheist, but being atheist doesn't make you rich. Christianity is a useful tool for controlling peasants, and has been for at least a thousand years.

The confluence of religion, government, and the military industrial complex are the real problem.

Focusing on a miniscule % of a % is just mindless internet dickwaving.

Meaning what exactly? It seems obvious to me, that whoever has buckets of money will corrupt the democratic process. 1% is a goofy kind of shorthand when it's really more like the 0.1% that have inordinate amounts of power and influence.

That .1% has massive influence.

The miniscule % of a % that are atheist libertarians have no power, unless the Kochs are secret atheists, which I doubt, but it is possible.

Well yea, I'd agree with that. Atheist libertarians are most douchey of our least problems.

phaseolus:Tfa gives just two examples: Penn Jillette, and Michael Shermer.

Now I'll happily point and laugh at the kind of person who got this author's panties in a bunch. I kinda see them as just ideologues who take the labels that describe them a little too seriously, treating 'atheist' or 'libertarian' (or any other label for that matter) as something to *be*, not just 'what they sound like'.

But -- in the grand scheme of things, how important and influential are those two, anyway? One's a fat bellowing C-list entertainer, and the other's "yeah, I think I heard that guy's name, once" at best. And maybe I haven't been paying close attention but I'm having trouble thinking of more names to add to the list of libertarian atheist opinion leaders.

Super Chronic:but most of the world's leading economists denounce it as a folly that would exacerbate the central economic challenges we face today-most significantly, wealth disparity.

See, personally, I think the most significant economic challenge we face today is making sure people have food, shelter, health care and clothing. Wealth disparity, in and of itself, never bothered me that much. Having some people get filthy rich while others can't eat? Yes, that's a problem, but it's not quite the same thing as denouncing disparity per se.

We'll always have some wealth disparity, there are going to be those that make it big and those that struggle a bit to make ends meet, but extreme wealth disparity makes addressing those problems of adequate food, shelter, healthcare, etc. far more difficult.

Being wealthy isn't evil, and being wealthy doesn't mean you need to be punished. Cheating your way to that wealth is and should be punished. Destabilizing markets to make that wealth should be punished. Slapping AAA ratings on substandard financial products to sell should have been punished. Polluting the environment, making a shiat load off of the production that caused the pollution, and then telling residents "Tough titties, you clean it up, we don't have to, we got a law passed that absolved us of cleaning it up" is wrong

The confluence of religion, government, and the military industrial complex are the real problem.

Focusing on a miniscule % of a % is just mindless internet dickwaving.

I think you should add in Multinational Corporations to your mix, but yeah pretty much.

And considering it takes somewhere aroudn 45% of the population to elect the current dickbags we have in office, perhaps people shouldn't resign themselves to the current mess we have and should actually band together and do something about it. I haven't found a populist party yet, but that's what this country needs.

justinguarini4ever:And considering it takes somewhere aroudn 45% of the population to elect the current dickbags we have in office, perhaps people shouldn't resign themselves to the current mess we have and should actually band together and do something about it. I haven't found a populist party yet, but that's what this country needs.

never gonna happenYou would need a large percentage from BOTH current parties to switch, and I dont see that happening.This is especially true about the Democratic Party, the majority of DEM voters are happy enough with the current part.

And the last time the GOP discontents split off, they voted for ross perot, and helped elect clinton.

So neither side wants THAT to happen again.

Look at congress, why havent the moderate GOP members jumped ship and joined the moderate democrats to take over the house from the current wackjobs?

Zaraithe:Zaraithe: Greene with zero comments. This article must include instructions on resurrecting Rand herself so she can lead a crusade against the Library hordes and usher in one thousand years of paradise.

EWreckedSean:You are confused between the definition of Libertarian and libertarian apparently...

He's not a libertarian or a Libertarian. He's a conservative with some libertarian ideals and a libertarian-leaning Republican. I'm just tired of politicos trying to paint Ron Paul as a libertarian/Libertarian.